Гран-При, Шарджа: Непомнящий - Вашье-Лаграв, Грищук - Мамедъяров и другие партии восьмого тура. LIVE

Время публикации: 26.02.2017 13:21 | Последнее обновление: 26.02.2017 13:21

Предпоследний тур этапа Гран-При в Шардже стартует в 14.00 по московскому времени. Смотрите прямую трансляцию партий.



It appears that Adams has

It appears that Adams has received a third consecutive Black pairing in the final round.
To the best of my understanding, this is not permissible in the Swiss Dutch system (GP Rule 4.6), even in the last round. The Swiss Dutch Rule A.7a gives an "absolute colour preference" to Adams, and section B.2 says "these may not be violated" regarding such criteria. No exceptions are noted.

The relevant "Basic Rule" (g) states: "No player will receive the same colour three times in a row. Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament." However, I don't think the Swiss Dutch system makes such an exception (as do others). The fact that the Swiss Manager pairing program (GP Rule 4.6 again) might do this is (to me at least) not relevant. The stated rules of Swiss Dutch should take precedence (e.g., Basic Rule (i) regarding transparency).

If nothing else, it's a discrepancy that someone can complain/appeal about, something that FIDE should be trying to avoid.

Historically, if my memory is correct, Walter Browne appealed a third consecutive Black in the US Open in the late 80s, and eventually the Appeals Committee gave him 3/4 of a point in the end (I think Alburt won with 10/12, and Browne was officially 2nd with 9.75/12). Again my memory is hazy, but the issue there was some discrepancy regarding the newly introduced USCF Rules edition and the construal of the word "shall" as advised in its Preface.

After looking at this a bit

After looking at this a bit more, even if FIDE has incorrectly applied the pairing rules (and I'm not 100% convinced of that yet), I don't think that Adams can expect much from the Appeals Committee (anyone surprised?...). It seems unlikely they would be willing to contravene Rule C.04.2.10 which states that the pairings cannot be changed after being published. If so, his only course would be to play the game under protest, and then afterwards attempt to argue for compensation on the matter (either by the Appeals Committee or otherwise).

Regarding the above Browne example, again I'd like to have the Chess Life issue in front of me to verify the facts, but I think he was actually paid 2nd place money from different USCF funds (in acknowledgement of their error), with the "3rd place finisher" getting 2nd place money from the tournament fund, and "4th place" got 3rd place money, etc., so that in the end no one could complain on that regard. Something like this is probably the "best" solution if it comes to that (as I doubt Adams wants to take any underlying contractual dispute too far), though it's less clear whether he could get also get additional GP points as compensation (there are certainly examples in e.g. auto racing where such measures have been taken when trying to rectify an official error in the fairest way possible).

Anyway, Adams is an ACP Premium Member, so they should be concerned for his interests.

The pairing is absolutely

The pairing is absolutely correct. According to the "Dutch system" rules:

"B.2 Two players with the same absolute colour preference (see A7.a) shall not meet (therefore no player’s colour difference will become >+2 or < -2 nor a player will receive the same colour three times in row)
Note: If it is helpful to reduce the number of floaters or the score of a floater when pairing top scorers B2 may be ignored."

In the present case there is no other way to keep the same number of floaters: Mamedyarov must float down since he has played against everyone in the group; Nakamura has played against everyone except Adams so either he must play against Adams despite the fact that one of them (i.e. Adams since he is lower-ranked) must play a third black game in a row, or two more players must float down. In such case the "note" should be applied, ergo: Nakamura - Adams.

OK, you are correct. I

OK, you are correct. I interpreted "top scorers" in B.2 as being the 5-pt group, and thus not applicable to the 4.5-pt group of Adams. However, A.10 defines "top scorers" exactly as those over 50% in the last round.

Though it is unimportant, your analysis is mistaken at a couple of points, as in fact Nakamura has not yet played Nepo. However, Jakovenko *has* played everyone but Nepo, so after making that pairing, Nakamura-Adams is indeed all that remains. Also, the allocation for this game is by E3 ("Alternate the colours to the most recent round in which they played with different colours", being Round 5 here) rather than E4 (higher ranked player gets preference).

Yes, sure, of course,

Yes, sure, of course, Jakovenko is the point and not Nakamura. I checked it earlier but then mixed it up. And indeed, Nakamura and Adams have different histories of colours. Thank you for the corrections!

Смотрите также...